Arkansas Postgame Numbers & Thoughts

[StatTiger 3,146]

After what appeared to be a step forward during a close loss to LSU 2 weeks ago, the Auburn Tigers took 3 steps backwards with an embarrassing performance against a struggling Arkansas team. The game was Auburn's 7th loss by 14 or more points in their last 16 games and their 9th overall under Gene Chizik. The Auburn defense started off slowly but after the first 2 possessions, the Tigers held Arkansas to 20-yards or less in 6 of the next 7 possessions. The defense did enough to keep Auburn in the game through the first 3 quarters but the Auburn offense failed to score during their first 9 possessions of the game. The stagnant Auburn offense resulted in a quarterback change at halftime but the Tigers managed just 1 scoring drive during the second half and 3 additional turnovers. When the offense finally generated a touchdown, the defense collapsed on the subsequent series.

The offensive line played perhaps their worst game of the season, making Arkansas look like a top-10 defensive front. I'm not sure if Avery Young played on offense this week (I don't recall seeing him) but his recent benching has been a "head scratcher" to say the least. Auburn had two weeks to prepare for this game against a defensive opponent, one of the worst in the nation. Auburn finished with 321-yards, 7 points, 5 turnovers and 8 sacks. Auburn managed to snap their 16-game consecutive streak of being held under 200-yards passing. Though I understand the concept of changing quarterbacks to possibly ignite the offense, Auburn is now back to where they were last year, in terms of quarterback identity on offense. I thought Moseley did okay but the two interceptions were costly.

Arkansas did a terrific job of neutralizing Auburn's defensive ends by chipping them off the line with their TE. Not only was the chip effective in slowing down the pass-rush, the Razorbacks also cashed in with the TE releasing into the flat after the chip to generate 3 impact plays off the same play. Tre Mason finished the game with just 6 carries, which is perplexing since he has been Auburn's most efficient and consistent running back. Mike Blakely has the potential to be a solid running back but I don't understand why the coaches have been so reluctant in allowing Mason to be the featured back. How are any of the backs expected to develop a rhythm on 6-9 carries per game? At minimum, it certainly doesn't make sense that he has a grand total of 15 carries during the last 2 game.

Inside the Numbers…

• The Auburn offense was more effective on first down this Saturday, finishing with 6.5 yards per play. Auburn averaged 5.1 yards on first during the first half and 7.6 yards during the second half.
  
• Auburn's opponent has averaged more yards on first down plays in 17 of the last 22 games, which includes 10 of the last 11 games.
  
• Kiehl Frazier finished the game with a pass rating of 120.8 and Clint Moseley finished with a 123.8 rating. The "spark" attempt failed for the most part and now the coaches are faced with the beginning stages of a quarterback controversy.
  
• Auburn has scored a total of 15 offensive touchdowns during their last 10 conference games and 5 of those came against Ole Miss last season.
  
• Emory Blake recorded his 6th career 100-yard game with 10 receptions for 118-yards. Blake is currently on pace for an 800-yard season.
  
• 11 different players were targeted in the Auburn pass-offense against Arkansas. Emory Blake has been targeted 23 times during the last 2 games.
  
• DeAngelo Benton, Jaylon Denson and Ricardo Louis recorded their first receptions of the season.
  
• In only 2 of Auburn's last 16 games, Auburn has registered more tackles for loss than their opponent. Their opponent has consistently won the line of scrimmage.
  
• During the 28 conference games under Gene Chizik, Auburn has recorded more tackles for loss than their opponent only 5 times.
  
• Auburn's quarterbacks were sacked 8 times and hurried 7 times against Arkansas.
  
• Auburn's defensive line accounted for 18.8 percent of the tackles, their lowest output all season.
  
• Auburn has scored in 60.0 percent of their regulation quarters through 5 games, the 3rd worst percentage over the past 32 seasons (1981-2012).
  
• In 9 of their last 16 games, Auburn has been shutout during the 4th period.
  
• During the past 2 seasons, Auburn has been outscored in the second period, 146 to 67 and 100 to 54 during the 4th quarter.
  

With Auburn falling to 1-4 on the season, it marks only the 4th time Auburn has began the season with only 1 victory during their first 5 games since 1951. The 1952 team went 2-8, the 1975 team went 4-6-1 and the 1998 team went 3-8-0. With one of the worst offenses at the FBS level this season and a Jekyll and Hyde defense, it's not likely this team will win enough games to garner a bowl invitation. The concern for the current coaching staff is whether or not the team will begin to slip away from them. Auburn came into the season with a lack of senior leadership, which makes the coach's job even more difficult to keep their personnel focused.

At this point Auburn needs to treat each game like a 1 game season. The only goal should be improving execution and nothing more. Before Auburn can win another game, they must win the possession and before they win the possession, they have to win the play. Not only do the players need to look in the mirror but the coaches also need to revaluate their preparation during game week and their game plans for Saturday. With the extra week off, it appears the players and coaches missed out on the opportunity to improve. Arkansas came into the game with only 2 forced turnovers and 4 sacks on the season. Against Auburn the Razorbacks had 8 sacks and 5 forced turnovers.

For every offensive touchdown Auburn has scored this season, they have turned the ball over 3 times. The self-inflicted miscues this team has battled through this season is a strong indicator of how poorly prepared the Tigers have been this year. As long as this continues Auburn will fail to perform consistently and will fall victim to additional lopsided defeats. Should Auburn finish the season 3-9 or 4-8 with 5-6 blowout losses, it would certainly require a strong consideration for changes all the way to the top of the program. It's not about where the team is now but how they arrived here and what direction are they taking from this point on. Initially 2011 was thought to be a steppingstone for 2012 and 2012 has now turned into a steppingstone for 2013. How many stones must this program now take after 4 years to prevent being stepped upon?

[PCBAuburnaFan 1]

This makes the situation seem more desperate than even I had thought...

[bigsixfive 327]

How many offensive snaps are we averaging and how does that compare to other teams and other AU offenses? We aren't going 3-out a ton but we're consistently losing the time of possession battle. The low number of carries by the backs might not be so low if we aren't snapping the ball all that much.

[IndianTiger 95]

Good summary Stat. We did move the ball yesterday and the mistakes were just too costly. Just way too many fumbles and INT's to have any kind of success.

It was a great opportunity to build on the LSU game, big disappointment clearly. Coaching is such a high pressure job in the SEC and we have had our share of good and bad at Auburn. I am pulling for the coaches to turn this around for everybody's sake.

War Eagle and its great to be an Auburn Tiger..

[PCBAuburnaFan 1]

Good summary Stat. We did move the ball yesterday and the mistakes were just too costly. Just way too many fumbles and INT's to have any kind of success.

It was a great opportunity to build on the LSU game, big disappointment clearly. Coaching is such a high pressure job in the SEC and we have had our share of good and bad at Auburn. I am pulling for the coaches to turn this around for everybody's sake.

War Eagle and its great to be an Auburn Tiger..

I don't even know if it's coaching technique anymore, this team doesn't look like they have any confidence or heart (on Offense at least) we look like we're just trying to play our 60 minutes and leave.

[AUIH1 1,515]

Interesting stuff as usual STAT. Sad, disturbing and depressing, but interesting.

wde

[Paw Paw 0]

To me the scheme is wrong. The Coaches on both sides of the ball are useless. I would be agitated if I had season tickets and spent as much money as some fans do on these games. Div ll has better teams than this one. Not enough recruiting inside Alabama is the problem. These boys are not motivated INHO. Using college as a steppingstone to a better coaching position or the NFL should not be tolerated by the admin. We need Alabama people who love Auburn playing for us. Having said that with a QB like Frazier the option would work. Let him run the ball with an option to give it to the running backs. He passes well but the run is not set up very well due to the weak Offensive line. Bring back the wishbone offense is what I would do based on what I see. War Eagle!!!

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

The 1952 team went 2-8...

That coach must have been a real bum. I'm sure AU ran him off before he could do any more damage.

Initially 2011 was thought to be a steppingstone for 2012 and 2012 has now turned into a steppingstone for 2013.

The thing about 2011 being a stepping stone to 2012 was that (as Jerry Hinnen put it* at The War Eagle Reader) Chizik effectively rebooted the franchise, starting over with different offensive and defensive coordinators and schemes. From January in another Hinnen article at TWER (Asked and Answered) on the change of offensive coordinator and scheme:

Full disclosure: this wasn’t what I wanted. I wanted a spread guy, specifically either Blake Anderson or — assuming our offer of a Malzahn-style giant pot of gold wouldn’t have been matched by the Ducks’ own giant pot of gold, a big if — Oregon’s Mark Helfrich. ...

... The spread is the best fit for our current personnel. Our best quarterback prospect is a spread quarterback, Our running backs are spread running backs. (Two of them — Blakely and Grant — specifically abandoned their previous programs because they were spread running backs.) Our tight ends are spread tight ends. (Does anyone think putting Phillip Lutzenkirchen or C.J. Uzomah in a three-point stance and asking them to drive block some monster SEC defensive end seems like the best use of their talents?) Many of our wide receivers –including our best one — are, by nature, spread wide receivers.

That’s a lot of spread dudes for a pro-style guy to inherit.

Chizik gambled with the reboot and it sure as heck hasn't gone smoothly. I don't know whether the gamble pays off in the long run or not. I think it can.

As bad as it is, and it is real bad, I do hope that Chizik is back next season. Even some really good coaches have sometimes fallen flat. Take that bum from 1952 for example...

[SumterAubie 2,919]

Difficult to run consistently when the offense is behind the chains on down and distance. Sacks and penalties.

[Tim Harris 0]

Coaches know way more than I do, but the solution on offense seems so clear to me:

• We want to be a physical team that wins the time of possession battle.
  
• We have a good (not great) stable of RBs that are our best skill position.
  
• We have QB problems, so we need to limit the number of throws.
  
• Our OL has performed much better run blocking than pass blocking.
  
• We have an All-American FB who is the strongest player on the team who blocks like a 6th lineman.
  
• Sooooooooo...line up in the I-formation (every play) with Prosch on the field (every play) and run straight at the D for 4 straight quarters, mixing in 10-12 play-action and bootleg passes.
  

I would like to know the average yards-per-play when Prosch is on the field in a two-back set versus single-back or shotgun. Just watching, it seems night and day different.

Despite the pain, I can take losing. What makes me absolutely self-destruct, however, is when the solution seems so clear and yet the coaches don't seem to see it (or view it otherwise). I just wish I could ask them and get an explanation.

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

Coaches know way more than I do, but the solution on offense seems so clear to me:

• We want to be a physical team that wins the time of possession battle.
  
• We have a good (not great) stable of RBs that are our best skill position.
  
• We have QB problems, so we need to limit the number of throws.
  
• Our OL has performed much better run blocking than pass blocking.
  
• We have an All-American FB who is the strongest player on the team who blocks like a 6th lineman.
  
• Sooooooooo...line up in the I-formation (every play) with Prosch on the field (every play) and run straight at the D for 4 straight quarters, mixing in 10-12 play-action and bootleg passes.
  

I would like to know the average yards-per-play when Prosch is on the field in a two-back set versus single-back or shotgun. Just watching, it seems night and day different.

Despite the pain, I can take losing. What makes me absolutely self-destruct, however, is when the solution seems so clear and yet the coaches don't seem to see it (or view it otherwise). I just wish I could ask them and get an explanation.

Agree 100%.

[StatTiger 3,146]

I'm not calling Chizik a bum and I completely understand the concept of being patient. This is why I stated if this team went 3-9 with 5-6 blow out losses, it would be reasonable to believe the head coach would be reevaluated. Again, it's not about what we are now but how we became this way. I'm all for the new change to a more traditional style of offense and the desire to be a more physical team. However, you have to wonder why Auburn signed an All-American at fullback with the desire to become a more physical offense, yet we have not run behind him very often and the most productive runner inside the tackles had just 6 carries.

[AU120289 315]

I'm not calling Chizik a bum and I completely understand the concept of being patient. This is why I stated if this team went 3-9 with 5-6 blow out losses, it would be reasonable to believe the head coach would be reevaluated. Again, it's not about what we are now but how we became this way. I'm all for the new change to a more traditional style of offense and the desire to be a more physical team. However, you have to wonder why Auburn signed an All-American at fullback with the desire to become a more physical offense, yet we have not run behind him very often and the most productive runner inside the tackles had just 6 carries.

Why inject logic into the discussion? It only confuses and angers the kool aid drinkers.

[Tim Harris 0]

My suspicion has been that Loeffler has been trying a mix of formations in an effort to create mismatches for defenses (i.e. get Blake open more frequently, since he's the only go-to receiver). It seems to be either A.) too complicated for the team to execute it all now; B.) not well-suited for our current players --- basing this off the number of assignment breakdowns, penalties, negative plays; or C.) Prosch isn't 100% healthy and they're having to pick-and-choose when to play him.

Assuming Prosch is healthy, it almost seems like a classic case of over-thinking --- a coordinator out-chess-matching himself. Let's simplify and, as STAT said earlier, focus on winning THIS play each play.

[miska_maniac 0]

The 1952 team went 2-8...

That coach must have been a real bum. I'm sure AU ran him off before he could do any more damage.

Initially 2011 was thought to be a steppingstone for 2012 and 2012 has now turned into a steppingstone for 2013.

The thing about 2011 being a stepping stone to 2012 was that (as Jerry Hinnen put it* at The War Eagle Reader) Chizik effectively rebooted the franchise, starting over with different offensive and defensive coordinators and schemes. From January in another Hinnen article at TWER (Asked and Answered) on the change of offensive coordinator and scheme:

Full disclosure: this wasn’t what I wanted. I wanted a spread guy, specifically either Blake Anderson or — assuming our offer of a Malzahn-style giant pot of gold wouldn’t have been matched by the Ducks’ own giant pot of gold, a big if — Oregon’s Mark Helfrich. ...

... The spread is the best fit for our current personnel. Our best quarterback prospect is a spread quarterback, Our running backs are spread running backs. (Two of them — Blakely and Grant — specifically abandoned their previous programs because they were spread running backs.) Our tight ends are spread tight ends. (Does anyone think putting Phillip Lutzenkirchen or C.J. Uzomah in a three-point stance and asking them to drive block some monster SEC defensive end seems like the best use of their talents?) Many of our wide receivers –including our best one — are, by nature, spread wide receivers.

That’s a lot of spread dudes for a pro-style guy to inherit.

Chizik gambled with the reboot and it sure as heck hasn't gone smoothly. I don't know whether the gamble pays off in the long run or not. I think it can.

As bad as it is, and it is real bad, I do hope that Chizik is back next season. Even some really good coaches have sometimes fallen flat. Take that bum from 1952 for example...

I am not one that evaluates everything on a record. You are correctly, very good and even great coaches have fallen flat at times. It would be plain ignorant denial to argue against that statement. I agree totally with you on that.

Here is my main issue in regards to Chizik: This team seems to have no heart. Yesterday, it looked as though the players just didn't have their mind in the game. I can take losing. I can take not looking prepared. I don't like it, but I can deal with it. What I cannot take though is my team being so removed from the game. They look unhappy and like they want to go home. Time and again since last season we've seen this Auburn team simply give up before it's over. We gave up again against Arkansas in the same manner we gave up against Mississippi State.

Great coaches sometimes have bad seasons. However, I've never seen great coaches have teams that showed such a removed attitude and disconnect with the game. Maybe that's just me I suppose. In 2009, we were not a great team. But, that team fought and it fought you until the last second. This is the second year in a row we've witnessed a Chizik coached team willing to throw in the towel before the game is over. That is what I cannot accept and that is why I truly feel it's time Auburn moved in a different direction.

[AUbritt 606]

I'm not calling Chizik a bum and I completely understand the concept of being patient. This is why I stated if this team went 3-9 with 5-6 blow out losses, it would be reasonable to believe the head coach would be reevaluated. Again, it's not about what we are now but how we became this way. I'm all for the new change to a more traditional style of offense and the desire to be a more physical team. However, you have to wonder why Auburn signed an All-American at fullback with the desire to become a more physical offense, yet we have not run behind him very often and the most productive runner inside the tackles had just 6 carries.

I do wonder. Does anyone know the answer? Is it Lefty? Or is it someone/something else?

[DyeCampAlum 335]

The bum who lost all those games in 1952 was in his second year, not his fourth.

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

Coaches know way more than I do, but the solution on offense seems so clear to me:

• We want to be a physical team that wins the time of possession battle.
  
• We have a good (not great) stable of RBs that are our best skill position.
  
• We have QB problems, so we need to limit the number of throws.
  
• Our OL has performed much better run blocking than pass blocking.
  
• We have an All-American FB who is the strongest player on the team who blocks like a 6th lineman.
  
• Sooooooooo...line up in the I-formation (every play) with Prosch on the field (every play) and run straight at the D for 4 straight quarters, mixing in 10-12 play-action and bootleg passes.
  

That's a pretty good take for a non-coach. I can imagine very similar advice coming from someone like a Pat Dye. If I recall correctly there was a time during his tenure as AU coach (with Stacy Danley or maybe James Joseph at tailback) when he pretty much did just what you advocated here after some early offensive struggles.

Dye used to say you had to have something to hang your hat on.Right now we don't. Your take here is about as good as any for a place to start.

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

I'm not calling Chizik a bum and I completely understand the concept of being patient.

Stat, I hope you didn't misunderstand my original reply in this thread. I didn't even mean to imply that you were calling Chiz a bum or didn't understand patience. My comments and the link were aimed elsewhere. I have the highest respect for you and if there is any poster on these forums that knows his stuff, you're it.

Sorry if my original reply was clumsy.

[miska_maniac 0]

I'm not calling Chizik a bum and I completely understand the concept of being patient.

Stat, I hope you didn't misunderstand my original reply in this thread. I didn't even mean to imply that you were calling Chiz a bum or didn't understand patience. My comments and the link were aimed elsewhere. I have the highest respect for you and if there is any poster on these forums that knows his stuff, you're it.

Sorry if my original reply was clumsy.

For what it's worth, I'd like to say I like you as a poster on here. We disagree mightily right now with the direction of where Auburn football should go but you know your stuff and you demand good numbers. I appreciate that sir and your experience as a coach seems evident when you post-at least it seems that way to me. I realize you probably don't feel the same way about me and that's fine. I just wanted to say that though we may disagree, I still have a high level of respect for you as well.

For Stat Tiger, the only guy I've seen able to come up with the numbers like that was Kevin McGrady. Stat seems to be much more objective and poor Kevin has moved on from writing on the interwebs. Wow though, he had some outstanding stats you could look at when you wanted to and I often dipped into his archives via email. Acid Reign on another site is a great man of stats too you would like him as well I think.

[graffevj 0]

Coaches know way more than I do, but the solution on offense seems so clear to me:

• We want to be a physical team that wins the time of possession battle.
  
• We have a good (not great) stable of RBs that are our best skill position.
  
• We have QB problems, so we need to limit the number of throws.
  
• Our OL has performed much better run blocking than pass blocking.
  
• We have an All-American FB who is the strongest player on the team who blocks like a 6th lineman.
  
• Sooooooooo...line up in the I-formation (every play) with Prosch on the field (every play) and run straight at the D for 4 straight quarters, mixing in 10-12 play-action and bootleg passes.
  

I would like to know the average yards-per-play when Prosch is on the field in a two-back set versus single-back or shotgun. Just watching, it seems night and day different.

Despite the pain, I can take losing. What makes me absolutely self-destruct, however, is when the solution seems so clear and yet the coaches don't seem to see it (or view it otherwise). I just wish I could ask them and get an explanation.

I agree and then build your plays from that core principle as Frazier gets better and more comfortable. We have no identity, and running Onterio straight up the middle and not Tre is just plain dumb.

[AUIH1 1,515]

I'm not calling Chizik a bum and I completely understand the concept of being patient. This is why I stated if this team went 3-9 with 5-6 blow out losses, it would be reasonable to believe the head coach would be reevaluated. Again, it's not about what we are now but how we became this way. I'm all for the new change to a more traditional style of offense and the desire to be a more physical team. However, you have to wonder why Auburn signed an All-American at fullback with the desire to become a more physical offense, yet we have not run behind him very often and the most productive runner inside the tackles had just 6 carries.

Also when you add the unacceptable off of the field problems combined with undisciplined/unfocused play on the field then you have to question Gene Chizik. How can you not? However; as long as Jay Jacobs is the AD, our athletic programs are at a HUGE disadvantage.

wde

[wt 0]

Coaches know way more than I do, but the solution on offense seems so clear to me:

• We want to be a physical team that wins the time of possession battle.
  
• We have a good (not great) stable of RBs that are our best skill position.
  
• We have QB problems, so we need to limit the number of throws.
  
• Our OL has performed much better run blocking than pass blocking.
  
• We have an All-American FB who is the strongest player on the team who blocks like a 6th lineman.
  
• Sooooooooo...line up in the I-formation (every play) with Prosch on the field (every play) and run straight at the D for 4 straight quarters, mixing in 10-12 play-action and bootleg passes.
  

I would like to know the average yards-per-play when Prosch is on the field in a two-back set versus single-back or shotgun. Just watching, it seems night and day different.

Despite the pain, I can take losing. What makes me absolutely self-destruct, however, is when the solution seems so clear and yet the coaches don't seem to see it (or view it otherwise). I just wish I could ask them and get an explanation.

Dead on!!!!! Can somebody get this on paper and slide it under Chizik's door tonight?

[StatTiger 3,146]

I'm not calling Chizik a bum and I completely understand the concept of being patient.

Stat, I hope you didn't misunderstand my original reply in this thread. I didn't even mean to imply that you were calling Chiz a bum or didn't understand patience. My comments and the link were aimed elsewhere. I have the highest respect for you and if there is any poster on these forums that knows his stuff, you're it.

Sorry if my original reply was clumsy.

Gotcha....War Eagle!

[norcuron 35]

Durn Stat.... and they used to call me negitive.....